In the context of the numerous models used by organizations to understand, implement, and evaluate
changes within the organizational setting, the historical antecedents can be traced back to various
disciplines and theories. These antecedents have influenced and shaped the development of change
management models over time. The following are some of the major antecedents in the field:
1. Kurt Lewin's Change Model: Kurt Lewin, a psychologist, introduced the concept of planned change in
the 1940s. His model, known as the unfreeze-change-refreeze model, emphasized the importance of
unfreezing existing behavior patterns, implementing desired changes, and then refreezing the new
behaviors to make them stable. This model laid the foundation for understanding the process of change
in organizations.
2. Organizational Development (OD) Theory: Developed in the 1960s and influenced by Lewin's work,
the OD theory focused on improving organizational effectiveness and facilitating planned change. OD
theorists emphasized humanistic values, participatory approaches, and the role of interventions to bring
about change in organizations.
3. Systems Theory: Systems theory views organizations as complex systems composed of interconnected
parts. This theory, which gained prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, contributed to a holistic
understanding of organizations and how changes in one part of the system can have ripple effects on
other parts.
4. General Systems Theory: General systems theory, pioneered by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1950s,
emphasized the interconnected nature of different systems, including organizations. It contributed to
the development of models that view organizations as open systems, influenced by their environment
and constantly adapting to changes.
5. Total Quality Management (TQM): TQM emerged in the 1980s and gained popularity in the 1990s as a
management approach focused on quality improvement and customer satisfaction. TQM frameworks
emphasized continuous improvement, employee involvement, and a customer-oriented culture. These
ideas had a significant influence on change management models that prioritize employee engagement
and customer-oriented change.
6. The Agile Manifesto: The Agile Manifesto, developed in the early 2000s, revolutionized project
management and software development practices. It introduced principles such as iterative and
incremental development, adaptive planning, and empowered cross-functional teams. These principles
have influenced change management models by promoting flexibility, collaboration, and adaptability to
change.
7. Contemporary Change Management Models: Over the years, numerous change management models
have emerged, building on these antecedents and incorporating new research and best practices.
Examples include the ADKAR model, Kotter's eight-step model, Bridges' transition model, and the
McKinsey 7-S model, among others.
By tracing the historical antecedents of these models and theories, we can understand the evolution of
change management practices and how they have been shaped by various disciplines and concepts. This
knowledge helps organizations to comprehend the theoretical foundations and practical applications of
the models used to manage change in today's dynamic organizational environments. “Hornstein,
Bunker, Burke, Glides and Lewiki place the origins of
OD in 1924, based on the study and research anthology psychology applied to work in the factory
Hawthorne Western Electric Company,
USA today. There, the effects on production rates of changes in working conditions are studied. In the
middle of the studies the influence of behavioral factors (social, group and individual) was discovered in
obtaining results in organized labor [1].”2“Warren Venis considers that the OD. He was born in 1958
with the work led by Robert Blake and Herbert Shepard in the Standard Oild Company (ESSO), USA.
There arose the idea of using the methodology laboratories "sensitivity training", group dynamics or'TGroups' not to favor essentially the development of individuals, but to develop the organization,
through the work done with groups of people belonging to the same company”.3 Commitment to the
above, on the other hand, there is unity or a general criterion among academics about the roots of the
DO, being those listed below:
1. Innovations in implementing the findings of training laboratories awareness in complex organizations.
2. Research methodology surveys and feedback.
3. Action Research.
4. socio-technical and socio-analytical approaches Tavistock.
Interline will discuss in generalities that distinguish these sources of OD{eceived September 28, 2016;
Accepted November 07, 2016; Published
November 11, 2016
Citation: Alejandro SG (2016) History and Fundaments of Organizational
Development. J Glob Econ 4: 222 doi: 10.4172/2375-4389.1000222}
Organisation Development (OD) enables people to transform systems.
OD is the application of behavioural science to organisational and system issues to align strategy and
capability. It enhances the effectiveness of systems through interventions that enhance people’s
collective capability to achieve shared goals.( Organisational Development (OD) A Practical Toolkit
.page4)
The Three Step-Model of Change
Background: The Three-Step model of change was proposed by Kurt Lewin in 1947 as one
of the four interrelated elements that comprise his planned approach to change, with the other three
being field theory, action research and group dynamics (Burnes & Cooke, 2012;
Burnes, 2004). It focuses on the conditions/forces that drive or hinder behaviour (Kritsonis,
2005). According to the social scientist, human behaviour is the result of a dynamic balance
of forces working in opposing directions (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005). The three-step model or field
theory therefore assumes that a shift in the balance of these forces or conditions towards the
direction of the planned change can bring about desired changes in behaviour (Kritsonis, 2005). In
organizational terms, whereas driving forces (e.g. incentives) facilitate change by pushing employees
from their current behaviour towards the planned change, restraining forces (e.g. group norms)
hinder change by pushing employees in the opposite direction (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005). The
existing behaviour, problem situation, or status quo is referred to as a quasi-stationary equilibrium
state (Burnes, 2004).
Core components: According to Lewin (1947), a successful change project involves three stages.
The first stage, termed unfreezing, involves reducing the forces maintaining the present organizational
behaviour or status quo; increasing the forces that direct behaviour away from the present
organizational state; or using a combination of both methods.
The second step involves moving the organization to a new level of equilibrium/desired behaviour
(implementing the desired change). It has been found that certain activities are necessary to
implement the first two stages of the change project. These include disconfirming the validity of the
status quo or persuading employees to agree that the existing situation is not beneficial to them. Also,
inducing guilt about the existing situation, and actively engaging employees and leaders in identifying
problems and solutions are important in the unfreezing and moving stages. In addition, creating
psychological safety or reassuring members that the desired change will be at no psychological cost
such as loss or humiliation to them, has been found to facilitate these two stages of the three-step
model (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005).
In the third or refreezing step, the planned change is integrated into the organizational values and
traditions in order to stabilize the new quasi-equilibrium state and prevent regression to the previous
problem situation. At this third stage, reinforcement is a critical method for stabilizing and
institutionalizing new behaviours within organizations (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005). Markers of
refreezing or a new quasi-equilibrium state include changes in organizational culture, policies, and
practices (Burns, 2006).
The Action Research Model
Background: The concept of action research, like the three-step model, is attributed to Kurt
Lewin (1946) as an element of planned change. According to Lewin (1946), action research is an
approach to research which is based on a collaborative problem-solving relationship between the
researcher and client, and which aims at both solving a problem and generating new knowledge.
Thus, in relation to organizations, traditional action research assumes that organizational problems
can be solved with cycles of knowledge gathering and implementation of action solutions when these
dual activities are concurrently and actively engaged in by members of the organization (Coghlan, &
Brannick, 2014). Action research further assumes that the desired outcomes of research/knowledge in
action are solutions to the immediate organizational problems as well as important learning from
intended and unintended outcomes (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014). Although various paradigms of
action research such as action learning (Revans, 1998) and participatory action research (Chambers,
1994) have been proposed, the traditional concept of the model has been, and continues to be the
dominant organizing model in OD (Burnes & Cooke, 2012; Burnes, 2004; McLean, 2005).
Core components: Action research is a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of
planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014; Burnes,
2004). In guiding planned change within organizations, eight main steps are involved: problem
identification, consulting with a behavioural science expert, data gathering and preliminary diagnosis,
feedback to client, joint diagnosis of the problem, joint action planning, action, and data gathering
after action (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The first of these steps is problem identification. This involves sensing a change situation or
problem within the organization (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014). Usually, this is done by an
executive or a powerful and influential person within the organization who realises one or more
problems that might be solved with the help of an OD practitioner (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The second step involves the organization consulting with a behavioural science expert such as an
OD practitioner. During this stage, the expert may share his framework for implementing planned
change with the organization in order to establish an open and collaborative relationship
(Cummings & Worley, 2009; Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014; McLean, 2005).
The third step concerns data gathering and preliminary diagnosis, which, although predominantly
completed by the OD practitioner, is done together with organization members. Here, the OD
practitioner may use process observation, interviews, questionnaires and/or organizational
performance data to gather appropriate and pertinent information about the organization’s
structures and/or operations. This information is then analysed to understand precisely, how the
organization is currently functioning, and to determine the underlying causes and consequences of
the problems within the organization (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
Feedback to key client/group follows the data gathering stage and involves the OD practitioner
feeding back findings of the diagnostic exercise to members of the organization (e.g. employees,
managers, and executives). As highlighted by Cummings and Worley (2009), a balance between
openness about relevant and useful information and confidentiality about sensitive or private data
sources is critical at this stage of the change process. Likewise, the readiness of the organization
for the diagnostic information is crucial to the preceding stages of the change process.
Joint diagnosis of the problem follows feedback to the client. At this stage, the OD practitioner
and organization members jointly agree on what the problem and its causes are, as gaps in
communication during the data gathering stage could result in misdiagnosis. This is a critical stage
within the action research model (Wicks & Reason, 2009), as misdiagnosis or misunderstanding
of the diagnosed problems could bring the change process to a halt or create resistance to change
(Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The joint action planning step precedes the actual action phase and involves the OD practitioner
and the organization members jointly agreeing on the actions or interventions needed to bring
about the desired change. The specific action agreed upon at this stage usually depends on a host
of factors including the diagnosis of the problem.(European Journal of Training and Development
Studies
Vol.2, No.3, pp.29-43, September 2015 ___Published by European Centre for Research Training
and Development UK) (www.eajournals.org) 34 ISSN 2057-5238(Print), ISSN 20575246(Online)
At the action phase, the planned actions are undertaken to bring about desired changes to the
overall organization (e.g. changes in strategic mission and goals, structure, processes and human
resources); at the group level (e.g. changes in culture or behaviour of departments or teams); or at
the individual level (e.g. changes in job descriptions and tasks) Cummings and Worley, 2009;
McLean, 2005). The data gathering after action has been taken, is the last step in the model. Here,
the OD practitioner gathers data on the effects of the action and feeds this information back to the
client. This may result in re-diagnosis and new actions, giving this model its cyclical nature.
organization and the nature of the intervention/actions (Cummings and Worley, 2009; McLean,
2005).
Action Research Model of Planned Change
The action research model has over the years, made significant contributions to the field of
OD and beyond, through its emphasis on the dual process of academic research/knowledge
creation and problem solving (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014; Reason & Torbet, 2001). It can
therefore be argued that the concept has played and continues to play a critical role in bridging
the researcher-practitioner gap in the field of OD. In support of the various problem-centred
cases noted by Gallos (2006, pp 141) to have been successfully solved through the application of
the action research model, Burnes and Cooke (2012) stated that the model is the most used
approach by OD practitioners. Furthermore, the action research model is known for its rigour,
and has shown extensive contributions in the area of theory and methodology advancements,
considering that a host of action research forms have been developed form the original concept
(Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014).
Despite its strengths and effectiveness, the action research model has been criticised by other
proponents of the OD field. Cooperrider and Srivastva, as far back as in 1987, criticized the
model and its underlying assumptions as focusing on utilitarian and technical views of
organizations as problems to be solved. They therefore proposed the appreciative inquiry model
as an alternative. According to Gummesson (2000), the action research model is also the most
demanding and extensive method of doing case study research.
The Appreciative Inquiry Model of Planned Change
In relation to the appreciative inquiry model, a key strength has been its focus on appreciating
existing situations to generate new and positive ideas, which have been argued by some in the
field as being the most important force for change (Bush, 2011). The effectiveness of this
approach has also been well documented. It has been found that the appreciative inquiry model
has been instrumental in fostering positive change and growth in both small- and European
Journal of Training and Development Studies Vol.2, No.3, pp.29-43, September 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK
(www.eajournals.org) ISSN 2057-5238(Print), ISSN 2057-5246(Online)
4D
large-scale organizations, including religious, medical, military, academic and educational
organizations (Cooperrider, 2000; Lewis et al., 2008; Gallos, 2006). However, in spite of the
outstanding outcomes associated with the 4-D model, it has been criticized for omitting an important
first step of identifying or defining the focus of the inquiry/the subject of change itself (Bushe, 2011).
Although how the subject of inquiry is defined has not been well articulated, clarifying what it is, and
ensuring that it is of high interest to leaders and stakeholders, has been argued to be crucial to the
overall success of the change process (Bushe, 2011). In addition, the model has been criticized for
focusing solely on the strengths of an organization. As noted by some in the field, complete and
successful changes require not only a focus on the best of what is, but also, solutions to the problems
and challenges facing organizations (Cummings & Worley, 2009; Gallos, 2006; McLean, 2005).
Organisational Development can be described as the systematic process to change the culture,
system and behaviour of organisation. It is process that helps in solving organisational problems
and achieving organisational objectives. It works as important mechanism that helps in impressing
the organisation and its employee through planned and established system. It concentrates on
people dimensions like norms, values, attitudes, relationships, organisational culture etc. The
strategies of organisational development focus on enhancement of organisation effectiveness and
solving organisational problems. It includes structural and technological changes and focuses on
working relationships of employees with the organisation.Warran Bennis has referred to
organisational development as a response to change,a complex educational strategy intended to
change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organisation so that they can better adapt to
new technologies,marketing and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself. Organisational
development is neither “anything done to better an organisation” nor is it “the training function of the
organisation”; it is a particular kind of change process designed to bring about a particular kind of end
result. Organisational development can involve interventions in the organisation’s “processes,” using
behavioural science knowledge as well as organisational reflection, system improvement, planning, and
self-analysis.
Organisational development is the attempt to influence the members of an organisation to expand
their candidness with each other about their views of the organisation and their experience in it,
and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organisation members. The assumption
behind this phenomena is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they
are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for
achieving their own and their shared organisational goals and that when this does not happen, such
activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in light
of this understanding.” (Neilsen, 1984).
Cummings and Worley (2002) defined organisational development as “a system wide application
of behavioural science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement
of the strategies, structures and processes that lead to organisation effectiveness”. This definition
emphasises several features that differentiate organisational development from other approaches
to organizational change and improvement, such as management consulting, technological
innovation, operations management, and training and development.
2.3.2 Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory
Lewin’s three step model states that organizational change involves a move from one static state
via a progression shift, to another static state. The model is also known as Unfreeze-ChangeRefreeze. This model has been cited by very many authors (like Burke, W. Warner (2011) Lewis,
(2011), McLean, (2006), Ravasi & Schultz, (2006)and Richardo, (2006).
Stage 1: Unfreeze
This stage involves creating the right conditions for change to occur. Unfreezing starts from
making the members understand the organizational crises or vision which motivates them to
change. Unfreezing normally goes through three stages. First of all, there must be enough
information indicating that the current organizational condition is not ideal. Secondly, this
information has to be related to the important goal of the organization, thus elicits members’
anxious feeling. Finally, a solution has to be proposed that will reduce the members’ insecure
feeling and resistance to change. By resisting change, people often attach a sense of identity to
their environment. In this state, alternatives, even beneficial ones, will initially cause discomfort.
The challenge is to move people from this ‘frozen’ state to a ‘change ready’ or ‘unfrozen’ state.
Stage 2: Transition
The transitional ‘journey’ is central to Lewin’s model and at the psychological level, it is typically
a period of confusion. People are aware that the old ways are being challenged, but there is no
clear understanding of the new ways which will replace them. Moving is taking certain actions to
transform the organization to an expected condition. The transition process is quite complicated.
It involves goal setting, support seeking, resource finding, planning and execution. There are two
forms of transitions, namely, problem-solving orientation and vision orientation. The organization
may adapt either one according to their specific situation. As roles change, a reduced state of
efficiency is created, where goals are significantly lowered. The end goal of this stage is to get
people to the ‘unfrozen’ state and keep them there, ready to change.
Stage 3: Refreeze
The end goal of the model is to achieve a ‘refreeze’, re-establishing a new place of stability and
elevate comfort levels by reconnecting people back into their safe, familiar environment.
Freezing is to stabilize the change achieved in the transitional stage. The individual, the
department, and the organization, all have an inertial way of thinking and doing, so that the change
achieved in the transition stage will return to the status quo before, if freezing is not done. Form
new rules, regulate members’ new behavior directly, reinforce appropriate responses, are all
possible ways to internalize the new value or behavior into the organizational culture.
Refreezing takes people from a period of low productivity in the transitional state to that of
organizational effectiveness and sustainable performance (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).